CLAUSE 10.—(Extension of jurisdiction of courts of summary jurisdiction.) (Hansard, 28 May 1937)

§ Mr. Spens

I beg to move, in page 7, to leave out lines 27 to 33, and to insert: (3) On any application made by virtue of this section the court shall not make an order unless it is satisfied that the applicant has not condoned or connived at, or by his or her wilful neglect or misconduct conduced to, the adultery, and that the application is not made or prosecuted in collusion with the other party to the marriage or any person with whom it is alleged that adultery has been committed. This is really a drafting Amendment. Clause To amends the Summary Jurisdiction (Married Women) Act, 1895. Subsection (1) provides that an order may be granted on the ground that the husband has been guilty of adultery, and Subsection (2) does it the other way round, providing that, where the wife of a married man has been guilty of adultery, he shall be entitled to apply for an order.

Then follows the proviso: Provided that no order shall be made on such application unless the court is satisfied that the husband has not condoned or connived at, or by his wilful neglect or misconduct conduced to such adultery and that the application is not made or prosecuted in collusion with the wife or any person with whom it is alleged that she has committed adultery. As the Clause left the Committee, the intention was that the proviso should apply both to applications under Subsection (1), by the wife, and to applications under Sub-section (2), by the husband, but, as drafted, it is suspected that the proviso would be read as applying only to applications under Subsection (2). The Amendment is merely to delete the proviso and substitute a new Sub-section (3) making it quite clear 571 that the protection applies to applications whether under Sub-section (1) or under Sub-section (2). It is little more than a drafting Amendment to carry out the intention of the Committee.